BF2S Forums Gun Free Zones

apollo_fi wrote:

Parker wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

I feel old Ted is himself offering 'a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial.'

With the exceptions of the shooting range, the hunting area, and the collector's cabinet, guns have no place in civilian life. IMO.

and i disagree.


i have training and experience. why shouldnt i be allowed to carry a firearm, if there are criminals that possess and use them?

Maybe you should, indeed, be allowed to carry a firearm.

The real issue is, do you trust the competence of the others who are allowed to carry a firearm? Do you trust them to have at least as much training and experience as you do? Do you trust that they are as mentally stable as you are?

i trust that they went through the same eight hour class that i did, and they had to pass the same tests that i did.
no, i dont trust them to have at least as much experience and training as i do. i have customers that are active duty SF operators that have taught me how to shoot......no, 99.99999999% of people wont have that kind of training.
but you know what? if any of those people try to hurt anyone while im around, they better hope they are quicker than me.


edit: spelling.

Last edited by Parker (2008-02-21 11:55:58)

IRONCHEF wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Parker wrote:

then lets hear it....whats wrong with what he said?

I feel old Ted is himself offering 'a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial.'

With the exceptions of the shooting range, the hunting area, and the collector's cabinet, guns have no place in civilian life. IMO.

Aww come on...  you're giving us your "IMO" on this?  you said you couldn't find sanity in what Ted said.  I have never read a more clear, concise argument for being armed than that, ever!!  And you're bailing on it with your modest opinion?  This ain't the apollo_fi I know.  Give us a run for our money man!

OK Ironchef, I'll try

We do have guns here in Finland. Lots of guns. At 0.56 firearms per capita, only USA and Yemen have a higher gun ownership ratio.

Maybe the main difference here is that I've grown used to the idea that there are guns around, but it is never, in no circumstances whatsoever, within sane behaviour to point the gun at a human being. Not even in self-defense.

The Finnish law is written along these lines as well. Concealed carry is not allowed for civilians. Ever.

I think Michael Moore made good arguments in his Bowling for Columbine movie (which I actually liked, despite it's anti-gun tone) when he suggested it was the nature of Americans to be violent.  He did the comparison between Canada (a trend of his) who likewise is heavily armed.  They have the same video games, same movies, alot of similar things...but why were we killing ourselves so much?  He basically said we're violent people..and I agree.  Friggen Finland?   I don't imagine a more content people int he world..except for maybe your western neighbors (stopping at England).  It'd be nice to be Finnish, Norweigan, Danish, etc...peaceful, nice people..and good cartoonists!

RoosterCantrell wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

but it is never, in no circumstances whatsoever, within sane behaviour to point the gun at a human being. Not even in self-defense.

Yes, of course, but you see, the problem is is that gunmen are not SANE.  And if you don't point your gun at the insane gunman, he sure as shit will, and not shooting him for it is just dumb.  I don't wanna die knowing that I didn't shoot the guy that killed me because "it wasn't right to point a gun aty him"

No disagreement here.

My concern is that the cure will be more harmful than the ailment, that the civilian population, in arms and prepared for the insane gunman, will cause more carnage than the insane gunmen ever will.

But I am admittedly biased.

apollo_fi wrote:

My concern is that the cure will be more harmful than the ailment, that the civilian population, in arms and prepared for the insane gunman, will cause more carnage than the insane gunmen ever will.

Well, it'd be unprecedented for the most part.  Unlike the wild west, where there was no training given to gun wielders, there was a mixture of results as you elude to in your concern.  But then, the wild west wasn't as wild as TV makes it..there weren't exactly duels at high noon on the streets all the time, etc, etc. 

It would be a new direction and unprecedented state if across the nation, everyone who qualified, trained, and armed themselves legally were packing.  I always say that an armed population is a polite one, and I'd finally get to see it happen like it has happened in armed cities all over this country....where it's done without infringement.  Maybe this is where the term "southern hospitality" comes from! lol  Sure there's the occasional badass who because he legally carries will talk a little more shit than he should in an argument.  But 32 students don't end up dead when that escalates beyond a verbal argument.

On various gun forums I frequent, I'm always seeing quotes that basically say "60,000 US gun owners didn't shoot someone today."  And after seeing citations supporting the crimes lawful gun owners get into, and after seeing heroic deeds done by said lawful gun carriers (as in Ted's letter), it was easy enough to see past the Brady smoke screen.

I'm Ironchef, and I used to be anti-gun but now I've seen the errors of my ways, and I approve this message! lol

Winston_Churchill wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I think Michael Moore made good arguments in his Bowling for Columbine movie (which I actually liked, despite it's anti-gun tone) when he suggested it was the nature of Americans to be violent.  He did the comparison between Canada (a trend of his) who likewise is heavily armed.  They have the same video games, same movies, alot of similar things...but why were we killing ourselves so much?  He basically said we're violent people..and I agree.  Friggen Finland?   I don't imagine a more content people int he world..except for maybe your western neighbors (stopping at England).  It'd be nice to be Finnish, Norweigan, Danish, etc...peaceful, nice people..and good cartoonists!

Honestly, have you ever been to Canada?
His interviews were so flawed, he asked the worst and dumbest people he could possibly find in that movie.  I guarantee he had to ask at least 20 different people those questions before he found answers that suited what he wanted.

And I totally disagree on everyone having guns.

Does it matter what interviews he put in his movie?  His statistics were right.  That dude doesn't just make shit up like everyone thinks.  How often do you see his opponents putting their own fact checking statements on their websites for everyone to verify for themselves. 

MM's point was that Canadians ARE armed as much as us, if not more per capita.  We share just about everything in common with each other that one would normally attribute to being violent, yet one country is violent and the other is not.  Can't really deny that fact..regardless of his interviewing and comedic skills.

Oh, and yes, I've been to Canada a few times.  Does that matter?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-02-21 12:51:23)

Agreeing on that is like saying that police system is useless (which sometimes is btw), if this is true, then overthrow the police system and make your own vigilante system.


Self defense I support, anarchy I don't.

apollo_fi wrote:

A propos, we're on page 2 of a gun control thread, having a civil discussion and not a flame in sight. This is not normal.

Mwahahahaha!

Gun free zones in a country full of guns and a sizeable number of wacko's and a sizeable proportion of all sorts of strife = fail

You're not gonna get the country like Norway or something. So don't copy silly European Utopia laws

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Classic Nugent vilifying any gun-control advocate as "anti-gun nut jobs".  Whatever.  How hard is it to criticize retarded legislation?  It's like facing a mentally retarded 5 year-old in a battle of intellect - although against Ted, it would probably be 50/50.

OK. You don't like Ted.  Too bad he actually has a valid point.

K-J wrote:

What I don't get is this insanely illogical (yet emotive) idea that allowing concealed weapons and allowing guns anywhere and everywhere will magically reduce crime rates.  Does gun ownership automatically turn you into a hero with no possibility of shooting up the place?  Do these concealed weapons come with a morality switch that allows the person to only do the right thing, every time?

Actually it's a fact.  Concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing for the community.  Go read "More guns, Less crimes".  The guy who wrote it had similar opinions (like yours) when he began his study.  No, the gun doesn't transform you into a hero or have a morality switch.  Just look at the bad guys for proof.  But hell man,  if you saw some guy dressed in a black trench coat whip out a shotgun and blast some lady pushing a stroller through a mall... Do you really need to ask yourself what is the morally right thing to do?  Shit -people like you then shouldn't ever carry.  Let someone else protect you.

K-J wrote:

Gun control can be a good thing when implemented properly.  The recent "gun control" legislation passed after the VT shootings actually lifted regulations on medical records regarding mental diagnosis.  How is that a good thing?  To me, gun control regulation should punish the irresponsible gun owner - of which there are a good amount.  I can't remember how many times I have said this - reduce the ability of criminals to procure guns while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners.  In case Ted has forgotten, there has been retarded legislation passed by both sides of the coin in regards to gun laws.  The nut jobs in the NRA see any type of legislation regarding guns as an affront on the 2nd amendment, and rally around asinine catchphrases like, "from my cold, dead hands" with seemingly zealous fervor.

I am not anti-gun, I am anti-idiot.  Therefore, I have to disagree with Ted's stance as stated in the OP.

How do you punish the irresponsible gun owner if he's dead by his own hand after killing a bunch of innocent people?  So... What in your opinion is some of the "retarded legislation" passed by the pro-guns people then?  This is about law abiding citizens that demand the right to protect themselves and yes even people like you too.  Gun control it isn't about the criminals because they don't give a fuck about laws or other basic human rights.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Classic Nugent vilifying any gun-control advocate as "anti-gun nut jobs".  Whatever.  How hard is it to criticize retarded legislation?  It's like facing a mentally retarded 5 year-old in a battle of intellect - although against Ted, it would probably be 50/50.

OK. You don't like Ted.  Too bad he actually has a valid point.

K-J wrote:

What I don't get is this insanely illogical (yet emotive) idea that allowing concealed weapons and allowing guns anywhere and everywhere will magically reduce crime rates.  Does gun ownership automatically turn you into a hero with no possibility of shooting up the place?  Do these concealed weapons come with a morality switch that allows the person to only do the right thing, every time?

Actually it's a fact.  Concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing for the community.  Go read "More guns, Less crimes".  The guy who wrote it had similar opinions (like yours) when he began his study.  No, the gun doesn't transform you into a hero or have a morality switch.  Just look at the bad guys for proof.  But hell man,  if you saw some guy dressed in a black trench coat whip out a shotgun and blast some lady pushing a stroller through a mall... Do you really need to ask yourself what is the morally right thing to do?  Shit -people like you then shouldn't ever carry.  Let someone else protect you.

People like me?  Actually, I support more lenient CCW legislation in California, which as it stands would make it illegal for me to carry a gun in a mall because I am not law enforcement nor can I prove my life is threatened.  If I had a gun and saw someone (regardless of his attire, hell, he could be wrapped in the American flag) start wantonly shooting up the place, I hope I would act like a hero (I would also hope that the police/security at the mall wouldn't mistake me for another looney and shoot me).

DBBrinson1 wrote:

K-J wrote:

Gun control can be a good thing when implemented properly.  The recent "gun control" legislation passed after the VT shootings actually lifted regulations on medical records regarding mental diagnosis.  How is that a good thing?  To me, gun control regulation should punish the irresponsible gun owner - of which there are a good amount.  I can't remember how many times I have said this - reduce the ability of criminals to procure guns while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners.  In case Ted has forgotten, there has been retarded legislation passed by both sides of the coin in regards to gun laws.  The nut jobs in the NRA see any type of legislation regarding guns as an affront on the 2nd amendment, and rally around asinine catchphrases like, "from my cold, dead hands" with seemingly zealous fervor.

I am not anti-gun, I am anti-idiot.  Therefore, I have to disagree with Ted's stance as stated in the OP.

How do you punish the irresponsible gun owner if he's dead by his own hand after killing a bunch of innocent people?  So... What in your opinion is some of the "retarded legislation" passed by the pro-guns people then?  This is about law abiding citizens that demand the right to protect themselves and yes even people like you too.  Gun control it isn't about the criminals because they don't give a fuck about laws or other basic human rights.

The irresponsible gun owner is the one that fails to properly secure his gun, allowing someone to rob his house when he is away and steal his guns to commit crimes with or sell on the black market.  An irresponsible gun owner is one that goes from shop to shop or show to show and purchases weapons to sell illegally.  An irresponsible gun seller is someone who sets up shop at a gun show and sells indiscriminately.  The idea of "gun control" is to punish the irresponsible owner, not the criminal.  How would a law punish someone who already breaks it?

I stated one concrete example of "retarded legislation".  It happens on both sides.  Creating "gun free" zones is ambitious, but unrealistic in my opinion without the presence of metal detectors, enforcement, etc (which often doesn't happen).

It seems like you are doing the same thing Nugent is - generalizing me as an "anti-gun nut job" because I support realistic measures to reduce illegal gun crime.

Ted shows that good things can (and often do) happen when people that carry a gun act heroically in horrific situations.  Should I start listing instances when "good people go bad"?  I wonder which one outweighs the other...

IRONCHEF wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

What in your opinion is some of the "retarded legislation" passed by the pro-guns people then?

Are there even any laws passed by pro-gun people?  Come to think of it, I can't recall a pro-gun law..just pro-gun people trying to curtail or stop anti-gun legislation.  Heller, microstamping, led ammo ban, AW PC, SF prop H, defending gun shows, Kasler, etc...all defensive items that become precedent, but no new laws made by gun owners that I can think of.

Read the legislation regarding the VT shootings.  It was hailed as gun-control, yet heavily influenced by the NRA to actually lift the use of medical records regarding a person's mental state in thier ability to purchase a weapon.  I've linked it before, but I'll see if I can find it for you.

Edit: Here it is, HR2640
Here is my conclusion

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-02-21 14:40:33)

"Evil", "satanic" and "anti-gun cults"?

Angry rants by angry men aren't terribly uncommon. This is yet another outburst from yet another intellectually dishonest person leveraging whatever undeniable positives contained within their ideals that appeal to the lowest common denominator in an effort to rally irrational support for their cause with as much laboured bias as they can squeeze out of their conflict of choice. How about confronting the conflicting issues, rather than preaching the ideals of your sentiments and writing off the totality of you opposition by criticising the obviously critical?

IRONCHEF wrote:

mikkel wrote:

"Evil", "satanic" and "anti-gun cults"?

Angry rants by angry men aren't terribly uncommon. This is yet another outburst from yet another intellectually dishonest person leveraging whatever undeniable positives contained within their ideals that appeal to the lowest common denominator in an effort to rally irrational support for their cause with as much laboured bias as they can squeeze out of their conflict of choice. How about confronting the conflicting issues, rather than preaching the ideals of your sentiments and writing off the totality of you opposition by criticising the obviously critical?

Who or what group were you attempting to address with your run-on run-amok comment?

Considering that I was quoting the article, it's a pretty safe bet that I was addressing the article. If you don't understand my comment, that's fine, but refrain from the insults. It does nothing positive for your post when all it contains is a question with an obvious answer, and a handful of spiteful remarks.

Edit: Too late for typing.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-21 15:09:43)

mikkel wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

mikkel wrote:

"Evil", "satanic" and "anti-gun cults"?

Angry rants by angry men aren't terribly uncommon. This is yet another outburst from yet another intellectually dishonest person leveraging whatever undeniable positives contained within their ideals that appeal to the lowest common denominator in an effort to rally irrational support for their cause with as much laboured bias as they can squeeze out of their conflict of choice. How about confronting the conflicting issues, rather than preaching the ideals of your sentiments and writing off the totality of you opposition by criticising the obviously critical?

Who or what group were you attempting to address with your run-on run-amok comment?

Considering that I was quoting the article, it's a pretty safe bet that I was addressing the article. If you don't understand my comment, that's fine, but refrain from the insults. It does nothing positive for your post when all it contains is a question with an obvious answer, and a handful of spiteful remarks.

Edit: Too late for typing.

Damn dude, chill!  I wasn't harshin on you at all.  I was noting your uber long sentence that sounded like an off the cuff version of V's initial "v" filled introduction.  And even if i was harshing you, try and be a grown up (there, that was harsh) and ignore the stuff that doesn't matter and respond to the honest question I gave.  I truly had no idea what you were addressing.  And thanks for the reply.

and for what it's worth, i still have no idea who you were talking about! lol

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-02-21 15:38:54)